Oregon Does Anybody Know The Current Status Of Rep. Nearman's IP 8 ?

Discussion in 'Firearm Legislation & Activism' started by arakboss, Feb 6, 2019.

Tags:
  1. arakboss

    arakboss
    Portland, Oregon
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter 2018 Volunteer

    Messages:
    2,433
    Likes Received:
    4,379
    Last I heard they turned in the initial batch of signatures and were waiting for a draft ballot title.
     
  2. arakboss

    arakboss
    Portland, Oregon
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter 2018 Volunteer

    Messages:
    2,433
    Likes Received:
    4,379
    Nevermind it looks like the OFF atty tore IP8 to shreds and I'm guessing they gave up on it.
     
  3. arakboss

    arakboss
    Portland, Oregon
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter 2018 Volunteer

    Messages:
    2,433
    Likes Received:
    4,379
    Kevin at OFF confirmed that IP8 is dead They were not able to get a fair ballot title from the anti-gun AG's office so they are not moving ahead with the initiative.
     
  4. tiggers97

    tiggers97
    United States
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    1,182
    Likes Received:
    1,363
    Yes, I think the AG managed to "poison pill" the initiative by stating it would roll back the closing of the "boy friend loophole", by making it sound like already convicted felons and such would be allowed access, if the initiative passed.

    I think IP8 was on the right track, and might just need some tweaking to be resubmitted (IP17?). Use the anti's "I support the 2nd amendment, but...." language against them to draw some type of line in the sand to make banning of common firearms in the future more difficult.
     
  5. 1Asterisk

    1Asterisk
    FUSA
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    298
    Just found this... Who says it is dead? Nothing I've found indicates that. From the Or Sec State website:

    "07/23/2018 Prospective petition filed. To begin the ballot title drafting process, chief petitioners must submit 1,000 sponsorship signatures.

    08/31/2018 Sponsorship signatures submitted for verification.

    09/17/2018 Signature verification of sponsorship signatures completed. Petition contains 1,903 signatures.

    11/09/2018 Official templates issued
    ."

    OFF has no updates beyond the original posting of the measure.

    Just because OFF doesn't want to proceed, does that mean the chief petitioners can't?
     
  6. arakboss

    arakboss
    Portland, Oregon
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter 2018 Volunteer

    Messages:
    2,433
    Likes Received:
    4,379
    Kevin at OFF informed me. It was because of the unfair treatment it got from the AGs office.
     
  7. tiggers97

    tiggers97
    United States
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    1,182
    Likes Received:
    1,363
    Yes. The AG pretty much "poison pilled" it when they managed to add to the description that it would overturn things like the "boyfriend loophole". I think it is still on the right track, though.
     
  8. 1Asterisk

    1Asterisk
    FUSA
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    298
    I fail to see why that should 'kill' it. So we sit around and have rallies instead, just because OFF & their lawyer didn't think it could pass because of an unfair ballot title? What did they think they would get from the AG?

    I find it odd that OFF has no information on any of the websites/forums about it being 'killed'. I also find it odd that a companion measure, 'The Firearms Safety Act' which was being touted by OFF at the same time [9/20/18] seems to have been similarly buried.

    I called both the Chief Petitioners of IP 8 this morning. I didn't get through to Carly Castellano, but I did leave a message.

    I did speak with Sharon Preston. To be brief I will quote her words, "OFF put a hold on it for some reason. I could never get a straight answer on it".

    FYI.
     
    CountryGent likes this.
  9. 1Asterisk

    1Asterisk
    FUSA
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    298
    Follow up -

    From the Or Sec St dated 10/24/18 -

    "The Elections Division received a certified ballot title from the Attorney General on October 24, 2018, for Initiative Petition2020-008, proposed for the November 3, 2020, General Election. Caption Amends Constitution: Creates constitutional right to possess, use, transfer semiautomatic, other firearms. Limits new firearm regulations. Retroactive."

    From the Or DOJ also dated 10/24/2018 -

    "We certify the following caption: Amends Constitution: Creates constitutional right to possess, use, transfer semiautomatic, other firearms. Limits new firearm regulations. Retroactive."

    "We certify the following summary:
    Summary:Amends constitution.The Oregon Constitution currently protects “arms” similar to those used for self-defense in 1859, including some firearms.State and local governments may regulate firearm ownership and use, in order to protect public safety. Proposed measure creates constitutional right to possess, use, transfer semiautomatic and “functionally similar” firearms that are currently available for civilian purchase under federal statutes. Measure retains existing firearm restrictions for some classes of individuals, including felons, but nullifies state restriction against possession by some domestic abusers that became effective July 1, 2018. Future regulations may not place “unreasonable burdens or special liabilities” (undefined) on acquisition of firearms that are the subject of the measure, or on keeping such firearms in “readily available operable state.”Other provisions."

    So, if what others are saying is true, that OFF 'killed' this measure because of this statement in the summary - "Measure retains existing firearm restrictions for some classes of individuals, including felons, but nullifies state restriction against possession by some domestic abusers that became effective July 1, 2018", I fail to see why we would give up trying to pass this measure based on that alone.

    Something smells....
     
    ZigZagZeke likes this.
  10. arakboss

    arakboss
    Portland, Oregon
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter 2018 Volunteer

    Messages:
    2,433
    Likes Received:
    4,379
    Keven told me it can cost about $100k to pass one of these IPs this one is plagued because of how the AG wrote the title. My guess is they don't believe that it would pass a court battle for the title challenge and they don't want to waste that money trying to do something that very likely won't survive. Even OFFs attorney doesn't think it will survive.
     
  11. 1Asterisk

    1Asterisk
    FUSA
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    298
    Not convinced. Any attempt to bring a ballot measure to the voters could be expensive. If OFF wants a measure so slick it will slide onto the ballot without any resistance, they certainly chose the wrong battle. So why even try?

    And I don't see how this ballot title "Amends Constitution: Creates constitutional right to possess, use, transfer semiautomatic, other firearms. Limits new firearm regulations. Retroactive" cause so much concern? Doesn't it express exactly what we gun owners are looking for?

    And what happened to the other measure, the 'Firearms Safety Act'? Was it quietly buried when the donations withered?

    I don't mean to be rude, but I'm looking for answers, not hearsay, nor guesses. This stinks IMO.
     
    ZigZagZeke likes this.
  12. arakboss

    arakboss
    Portland, Oregon
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter 2018 Volunteer

    Messages:
    2,433
    Likes Received:
    4,379
    Have you emailed Kevin?
     
  13. 1Asterisk

    1Asterisk
    FUSA
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    298
    Yes. Waiting for a reply.
     
  14. arakboss

    arakboss
    Portland, Oregon
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter 2018 Volunteer

    Messages:
    2,433
    Likes Received:
    4,379
    @1Asterisk sorry but this was a PDF and I just did a copy and paste job but this will show you how unfair the AGs office was and that they don't believe we have real 2nd Amendment rights.

    Stephen N. Trout
    Director, Elections Division
    Office of the Secretary of State
    255 Capitol St. NE, Ste. 501
    Salem, OR 97310
    Re: Proposed Initiative Petition — Amends Constitution: Creates Constitutional Right to
    Possess, Use, Transfer Semiautomatic, Other Firearms. Limits New Firearm Regulations.
    Retroactive
    DOJ File #BT-08-18; Elections Division #2020-008
    Dear Mr. Trout:
    We have received comments submitted in response to the draft ballot title for prospective
    initiative petition # 8-2020. Comments were received from attorney Greg Chaimov on behalf of
    Henry Wessinger and Paul Kemp; from attorney Steven Berman on behalf of Erica Vaughan and
    Joshua Friedlein; from attorney Eric Winters on behalf of Chief Petitioner Sharon Preston; and
    from Margaret Olney on behalf of Penny Okamoto, Joanne Skirving, and Elizabeth McKanna.
    We note that each of the commenters included information about the scope of Article I,
    section 27 of the Oregon Constitution as it currently reads, but there was substantial
    disagreement among them as to what weapons are protected by that provision. Mr. Chaimov
    also asserts that the prospective measure violates the single amendment provision of the Oregon
    Constitution. Resolution of that issue is beyond the scope of this letter. See OAR 165-014-0028
    (providing for separate review process by Secretary of State to determine whether measure
    complies with constitutional procedural requirements for proposed initiative measures).
    Accordingly, we do not address them here.
    We note that some comments do not challenge the draft ballot title but, rather, state
    support or opposition to the proposed measure. We note that the Attorney General’s role in the
    process of drafting the ballot title is to prepare an impartial ballot title that complies with ORS
    250.035. The comments on a draft ballot title are an important part of that process, pointing out
    flaws or nuances that may not be readily apparent. The end result, the certified ballot title, is
    intended to provide fair and accurate information to voters so that informed choices can be made.
    ELLEN F. ROSENBLUM
    Attorney General
    FREDERICK M. BOSS
    Deputy Attorney General
    Steven Trout
    Page 2
    This letter summarizes the comments we received regarding the draft ballot title, our
    responses to those comments, and the reasons we did or did not make changes to the ballot title
    in light of the submitted comments. ORAP 11.30(6) requires this letter to be included in the
    record in the event that the Oregon Supreme Court reviews the ballot title.
    We also enclose a copy of the certified ballot title.
    A. The Caption
    The ballot title must include “[a] caption of not more than 15 words that reasonably
    identifies the subject matter of the state measure.” ORS 250.035(2)(a). The “subject matter” is
    “the ‘actual major effect’ of a measure or, if the measure has more than one major effect, all such
    effects (to the limit of the available words).” Lavey v. Kroger, 350 Or 559, 563, 258 P3d 1194
    (2011). To identify the “actual major effect” of a measure, the Attorney General must consider
    the “changes that the proposed measure would enact in the context of existing law.” Rasmussen
    v. Kroger, 350 Or 281, 285, 253 P3d 1031 (2011). The draft caption provides:
    Amends Constitution: Right to bear arms includes possession, use, transfer of
    firearms/accessories currently allowed; limits regulation
    Each of the commenters asserts that the draft caption is flawed.
    Mr. Chaimov asserts that the draft caption does not state how the prospective measure
    would change current law, but merely paraphrases the language of the measure. In addition, he
    asserts that the caption should point out ambiguities in the measure. Further, he notes that the
    measure would place restrictions on the current ability of government to regulate weapons and
    impose liability for their use. The caption does not capture that aspect of the measure. Finally,
    he notes that federal law will control what is legal for civilian use.
    Mr. Chaimov also asserts that “the right to bear arms” is a slogan that elicits an emotional
    response and should not be used.
    Mr. Berman and Ms. Olney make similar remarks. Both note that the effect of the
    measure would be to greatly expand the classes of firearms protected from regulation and limit
    authority to regulate firearms to protect public safety. Both also note that the proposed measure
    has retroactive effect, undoing a law passed by the legislature in 2018 relating to the “boyfriend”
    loophole. Both Mr. Berman and Olney argue that “the right to bear arms” should not be used.
    Mr. Winters proceeds on very different assumptions about the current constitutional
    provision and the effect of the proposed measure. Relying on federal cases, he assumes that the
    Oregon Constitution already provides protection for modern firearms, including semi-automatic
    weapons, that are legal for civilian use. As is further explained below, this is not the case. With
    regard to the retroactive effect of the law, he posits that the measure is intended to protect against
    statutory changes that may occur after July 1, 2018. He also notes that the measure has no
    effects on accessories, but only on magazines of the type used in firearms currently lawful for
    Steven Trout
    Page 3
    civilian use. He does agree with the other commenters that the phrase “right to bear arms” is
    unhelpful.
    Mr. Winters also assumes that the measure’s protections against unreasonable burdens on
    currently available “common firearms” and the imposition of liability are encompassed in the
    original constitutional protection. This overstates the interpretation of the language by Oregon
    courts. Mr. Winters also suggest the use of the term “common firearms for self-defense” in the
    caption. Although this phrase may have first been used in a court opinion, it appears to be a
    “loaded phrase” with currency among some advocates for an expansive interpretation of the
    Second Amendment to the United State Constitution. Accordingly, it is best avoided.
    Both the Oregon Supreme Court and the Oregon Court of Appeals have opined about the
    application of Article I, section 27. “Arms” under that provision refers not only to firearms but
    also to the defensive weapons in use at the time of statehood, such as billyclubs or knives. See,
    e.g., State v. Kessler,289 Or 359, 614 P2d 94 (1980). As to firearms, the state can restrict
    individuals who pose a danger to public safety from having weapons, State v. Hirsch/Friend, 338
    Or 622, 114 P3d 1104 (2005), as well as the manner of possession of firearms. State v.
    Christian, 354 Or 22, 29, 307 P3d 429 (2013). The drafters of the Oregon Constitution “did not
    intend to deprive the legislature of the authority to specifically regulate the manner of possession
    or use of arms when it determines that such regulation is necessary to protect public safety,
    including, for example, the enactment of a prohibition on the carrying of concealed weapons or a
    restriction on the possession of arms by felons as members of a group whose prior conduct
    demonstrated an identifiable threat to public safety.” Id. at 31.
    Kessler also spoke to the kind of firearms encompassed within the constitutional
    guarantee:
    The revolutionary war era ended at a time when the rapid social and
    economic changes of the so-called Industrial Revolution began. The technology
    of weapons and warfare entered an unprecedented era of change. P. Cleator,
    Weapons of War 143-152 (1967). Firearms and other hand-carried weapons
    remained the weapons of personal defense, but the arrival of steam power,
    mechanization, and chemical discoveries completely changed the weapons of
    military warfare. The development of powerful explosives in the mid-nineteenth
    century, combined with the development of mass-produced metal parts, made
    possible the automatic weapons, explosives, and chemicals of modern warfare. P.
    Cleator, Weapons of War 153-177 (1967).
    These advanced weapons of modern warfare have never been intended for
    personal possession and protection. When the constitutional drafters referred to an
    individual's “right to bear arms,” the arms used by the militia and for personal
    protection were basically the same weapons. Modern weapons used exclusively
    by the military are not “arms” which are commonly possessed by individuals for
    defense, therefore, the term “arms” in the constitution does not include such
    weapons.
    Steven Trout
    Page 4
    If the text and purpose of the constitutional guarantee relied exclusively on
    the preference for a militia “for defense of the State,” then the term “arms” most
    likely would include only the modern day equivalents of the weapons used by
    colonial militiamen. The Oregon provision, however, guarantees a right to bear
    arms “for defense of themselves, and the State.” The term “arms” in our
    constitution therefore would include weapons commonly used for either purpose,
    even if a particular weapon is unlikely to be used as a militia weapon.
    Kessler, 289 Or 359.
    Mr. Winters assumes that “modern day equivalents of the weapons used by colonial
    militiamen” includes semi-automatic weapons that are legal for civilian ownership. The Oregon
    Court of Appeals specifically foreclosed that argument in Oregon State Shooting Assn. v.
    Multnomah County, 122 Or App 540, 855 P2 1315 (1993), rev den 319 Or 273 (1994). Relying
    on the opinion of the Supreme Court in State v. Delgado, 298 Or 395, 398-399, 692 P2d 610
    (1984), the Court of Appeals held that “the determination of what weapons come within the
    constitutional provision encompasses consideration of whether the drafters would have intended
    the constitutional protection to apply if they had envisioned the technological advancements and
    the reasons for which those advancements were made.” 122 Or App at 547. The court also
    noted that the weapons in use at the time that the constitution was drafted did not include
    repeating firearms.1 The court concluded that semi-automatic firearms are not within the
    protection of arms for self-defense encompassed by Art. I, section 27.
    It follows that such weapons could lawfully be banned in Oregon, at least insofar as that
    provision of the constitution is concerned, to the extent that was found to be in furtherance of
    public safety. The fact that such weapons are not currently regulated does not mean that they
    could not, in future, be regulated. Thus, the proposed measure does expand the scope of the
    original constitutional provision, as argued by Messrs. Berman and Chaimov and by Ms. Olney.
    We certify the following caption:
    Amends Constitution: Creates constitutional right to possess, use, transfer
    semiautomatic, other firearms. Limits new firearm regulations. Retroactive.
    B. The “Yes” and “No” Vote Result Statements
    We next consider the draft “yes” and “no” vote result statements.
    A ballot title must include “[a] simple and understandable statement of not more than 25
    words that describes the result if the state measure is approved.” ORS 250.035(2)(b). The “yes”
    1 The repeating rifle was developed in 1860, after Oregon’s statehood, and its first use was
    as a military weapon during the Civil War. See Rose, American Rifle: A Biography at 109, 129-
    130 (New York 2008).
    Steven Trout
    Page 5
    vote result statement should identify “the most significant and immediate” effects of the
    measure. Novick/Crew v. Myers, 337 Or 568, 574, 100 P3d 1064 (2004). The draft “yes” vote
    result statement provides:
    Result of “Yes” Vote: “Yes” vote amends constitutional right to bear arms:
    includes possession, use, transfer of guns/accessories currently allowed for
    civilians. Limits government regulation of firearms/accessories.
    A ballot title also must include “[a] simple and understandable statement of not more than
    25 words that describes the result if the state measure is rejected.” ORS 250.035(2)(c). The
    “no” vote result statement “should ‘address the substance of current law on the subject matter of
    the proposed measure’ and ‘summarize the current law accurately.’” McCann v. Rosenblum,
    354 Or 701, 707, 320 P3d 548 (2014) (quoting Novick/Crew, 337 Or at 577) (emphasis added in
    Novick/Crew; alterations omitted). The draft “no” vote result statement provides:
    Result of “No” Vote: “No” vote retains current constitutional provision
    protecting the right to bear arms for self-defense or for defense of the state.
    Each of the commenters repeats the criticisms raised as to the caption. In addition, Mr.
    Chaimov argues that the “yes” statement should include reference to those provisions of the
    measure that prevent the imposition of unreasonable burdens or special liabilities on gun owners.
    Word limits prevent the inclusion of those concepts, which are included in the summary.
    We certify the following “yes” statement:
    Result of “Yes” Vote: “Yes” vote creates constitutional right to possess, use,
    transfer semiautomatic, other firearms currently allowed by federal statutes;
    nullifies 2018 domestic abuser restriction; limits new regulations.
    All commenters re-raise the same issues as to the “no” result statements. In consideration
    of those comments, we certify the following “no” statement:
    Result of “No” Statement: “No” vote retains current constitutional protections
    for “arms” similar to those used for self-defense at statehood, including some
    firearms; allows regulations protecting public safety.
    As revised, we certify the result statements.
    C. The Summary
    We next consider the draft summary. A ballot title must include “[a] concise and
    impartial statement of not more than 125 words summarizing the state measure and its major
    effect.” ORS 250.035(2)(d). “The purpose of a ballot title’s summary is to give voters enough
    information to understand what will happen if the initiative is adopted.” McCann, 354 Or at 708.
    The draft summary provides:
    Steven Trout
    Page 6
    Summary: Oregon constitution currently protects people’s “right to bear arms
    for the defence of themselves, and the State.” Proposed measure amends that right
    to specifically include acquisition, possession, use, transfer of guns, ammunition
    and magazines that, on July 1, 2018, were not subject to civilian purchase
    restrictions beyond mandatory background checks. Right does not apply to
    devices restricted under federal law, or devices designed to enable automatic fire.
    Measure limits state, local authority to regulate firearms, ammunition and
    magazines. Government retains existing authority to restrict public use or carry,
    and to regulate acquisition, use, possession by: minors; those with felony arrests
    or convictions; those subject to restraining orders; those who pose serious risk to
    others; those prohibited under federal law; certain mentally ill individuals. Other
    provisions.
    In addition to the comments already discussed, Mr. Chaimov also objects to the inclusion of the
    provisions of law that will remain the same under the proposed measure, rather than pointing out
    the large changes to existing law that the measure would make. Similarly, Mr. Berman criticizes
    the treatment of the current scope of the constitutional provision; the ways in which that scope
    would expand; the limits that the measure would place on new regulations; and the omission of
    retroactive effect in the current summary. He also echoes Mr. Chaimov’s argument that the
    proposed measure restricts regulation rather than retaining existing regulation. Ms. Olney
    expresses the same concerns. These comments are well taken, and we have revised the caption
    accordingly.
    Mr. Winters also repeats his earlier comments, and notes that the inclusion of
    “ammunition” in the summary is erroneous. We agree and have eliminated that reference.
    We certify the following summary:
    Summary: Amends constitution. The Oregon Constitution currently protects
    “arms” similar to those used for self-defense in 1859, including some
    firearms. State and local governments may regulate firearm ownership and use, in
    order to protect public safety. Proposed measure creates constitutional right to
    possess, use, transfer semiautomatic and “functionally similar” firearms that are
    currently available for civilian purchase under federal statutes. Measure retains
    existing firearm restrictions for some classes of individuals, including felons, but
    nullifies state restriction against possession by some domestic abusers that
    became effective July 1, 2018. Future regulations may not place “unreasonable
    burdens or special liabilities” (undefined) on acquisition of firearms that are the
    subject of the measure, or on keeping such firearms in “readily available operable
    state.” Other provisions.
    Steven Trout
    Page 7
    As revised, we certify the attached ballot title.
    Sincerely,
    /_s_/ _D_e_n_i_s_e _G_._ F_j_o_r_d_b_e_ck__ __________
    Denise G. Fjordbeck
    Attorney-in-Charge
    Civil/Administrative Appeals
    denise.fjordbeck@doj.state.or.us
    Enclosure
    Sharon Preston
    3435 NW Dogwood Ave
    Redmond, OR 97756
    Carlyan Castellano
    6213 SW Beaverton Hillsdale
    Hwy #204
    Portland, OR 97221
    Gregory A. Chaimov
    1300 SW Fifth Ave Ste 2400
    Portland, OR 97201
    Steven C. Berman
    209 SW Oak Street Ste 500
    Portland, OR 97204
    Eric C. Winters
    30710 SW Magnolia Ave
    Wilsonville, OR 97070
    Margaret S. Olney
    210 SW Morrison St Ste 500
    Portland, OR 97204
    Certified by Attorney General on October 24, 2018.
    /s/ Denise G. Fjordbeck__
    Assistant Attorney General
    BALLOT TITLE
    Amends Constitution: Creates constitutional right to possess, use, transfer
    semiautomatic, other firearms. Limits new firearm regulations. Retroactive.
    Result of “Yes” Vote: “Yes” vote creates constitutional right to possess, use,
    transfer semiautomatic, other firearms currently allowed by federal statutes; nullifies
    2018 domestic abuser restriction; limits new regulations.
    Result of “No” Vote: “No” vote retains current constitutional protections for “arms”
    similar to those used for self-defense at statehood, including some firearms; allows regulations
    protecting public safety.
    Summary: Amends constitution. The Oregon Constitution currently protects
    “arms” similar to those used for self-defense in 1859, including some firearms. State and
    local governments may regulate firearm ownership and use, in order to protect public
    safety. Proposed measure creates constitutional right to possess, use, transfer
    semiautomatic and “functionally similar” firearms that are currently available for civilian
    purchase under federal statutes. Measure retains existing firearm restrictions for some
    classes of individuals, including felons, but nullifies state restriction against possession
    by some domestic abusers that became effective July 1, 2018. Future regulations may not
    place “unreasonable burdens or special liabilities” (undefined) on acquisition of firearms
    that are the subject of the measure, or on keeping such firearms in “readily available
    operable state.” Other provisions.
     
  15. CountryGent

    CountryGent
    Southern Oregon
    Ebullient Moderator Staff Member Platinum Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    8,200
    Likes Received:
    24,159
    Someone who has been convicted of domestic abuse, either of a misdemeanor or felony, is a prohibited person as far as the feds are concerned. What state-level law are they referencing?

    Parenthetically, I sent an email to the contact listed on the IP-8 site, but haven't heard anything yet.
     
  16. tiggers97

    tiggers97
    United States
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    1,182
    Likes Received:
    1,363
    Short version notes: Firearms introduced after 1859 are not "in common use" ( also a loaded term, per the letter) and therefore not protected by the Oregon constitution because the founders were too stupid to understand technology and science. And would not be equivalent to what a modern day militia might need. Oh, and a "yes" vote would would allow felons and domestic abusers access to firearms, legally.

    I almost WANT a AWB to pass, and have them use this as a defense. I don't know what sane court could uphold this ruling. Especially since Heller affirmed "in common use" (gun control seems to be afraid of that term), and the SCOTUS is less anti-gun now. (last AWB case, before trump was elected and appointing justices, that was not heard by the SCOTUS, the lower court agreed the firearms were "in common use", but thought it was within the legislatures ability to still regulate/ban them even if it only was to give the public a SENSE of security and ease. yes, these bans are being upheld on that low of a standard).

    Shortcut to the cases. Hopefully one of these days I'll have time to look them up.
    Mr. Winters assumes that “modern day equivalents of the weapons used by colonial
    militiamen” includes semi-automatic weapons that are legal for civilian ownership. The Oregon
    Court of Appeals specifically foreclosed that argument in Oregon State Shooting Assn. v.
    Multnomah County, 122 Or App 540, 855 P2 1315 (1993), rev den 319 Or 273 (1994). Relying
    on the opinion of the Supreme Court in State v. Delgado, 298 Or 395, 398-399, 692 P2d 610
    (1984), the Court of Appeals held that “the determination of what weapons come within the
    constitutional provision encompasses consideration of whether the drafters would have intended
    the constitutional protection to apply if they had envisioned the technological advancements and
    the reasons for which those advancements were made.” 122 Or App at 547. The court also
    noted that the weapons in use at the time that the constitution was drafted did not include
    repeating firearms.1 The court concluded that semi-automatic firearms are not within the
    protection of arms for self-defense encompassed by Art. I, section 27.
     
  17. DivCurlGrad72

    DivCurlGrad72
    Washington County, OR
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    445
    Likes Received:
    1,242
    These types of arguments are ridiculous, we don’t interpret rights that way:

    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER

    Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modernforms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
     
    tiggers97 and CountryGent like this.
  18. arakboss

    arakboss
    Portland, Oregon
    Bronze Supporter Bronze Supporter 2018 Volunteer

    Messages:
    2,433
    Likes Received:
    4,379
    My belief is the women petitioners were used in a stooge roll and did not author the IP.
     
  19. 1Asterisk

    1Asterisk
    FUSA
    Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    144
    Likes Received:
    298
    Kevin's reply to my inquiry -
    We did not “kill it.”
    After expensive litigation we got a second very bad ballot title and saw the writing on the wall that we could not expect to pass it. So we did not move ahead with gathering signatures.
    This was a mutual decision by many players involved in the measure.
    Kevin Starrett
     
    tiggers97 likes this.
  20. CountryGent

    CountryGent
    Southern Oregon
    Ebullient Moderator Staff Member Platinum Supporter Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    8,200
    Likes Received:
    24,159
    Well, that is a kick in the knickers.
     

Share This Page